http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Re-Ana-alarming-amount-of-image-manipulation-tp592857p1307463.html
My apologies again if this discussion thread becomes heated. I
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal>
> Hello
>
> Actually, the last sentence in Julio's post (see bellow) is perfectly
> in line with what we are confronted with daily as scientists.
>
> It is extremely hard to put aside preconceptions. Hence there are many
> evidences of the fact that it is easier to make people believe in fake
> facts that go along the main stream than in true facts that go against
> it. Unfortunately lots of those "evidences" are published.
>
> This goes beyond purposedly fraudulous manipulation since
> experimentators often convince themselves of the veracity of what they
> think they've seen when it matches with their idea of what they think
> they "should" see!
>
> Hence I once saw a colleague patiently pasting out of her images what
> she had deemed as artefacts. I pointed out to her that for an artefact
> this was strangely repetitive (ie each cell contained the "artefact"
> in approximately the same location). She repeated the experiment and
> ended up publishing the observation as a possible new structure.
>
> New techniques make the job of manipulators very easy and this must be
> fought against by stringent reinforcement of verifications or every
> published pictures whether in science or elsewhere (news but think
> also advertising for exemple). Manipulation of images should clearly
> be stated and methods to detect them should be inplemented, access to
> original data should be warranted etc.... I believe we as a profession
> should put pressure on software developers so that image manipulation
> is automatically signalled, perhaps not even knowingly to the
> experimentator. Every signalled image that is attempted to be
> published would call for extra care in the part of the reviewers and
> details of manipulation as well as originall data sets would be asked
> for... or something like that!
>
> Eric
>
>>> And how about all the fuss being made about the pictures, in the
> absence of any clear evidence as to which of the two versions
> is "true"? What does that tell about us? That we can choose to believe
> whatever version is presented to us, as long as it fits with our own
> preconceptions, without regard for reality?<<
>
>
> Eric Scarfone, PhD, CNRS,
> Center for Hearing and communication Research
> Department of Clinical Neuroscience
> Karolinska Institutet
>
> Postal Address:
> CFH, M1:02
> Karolinska Hospital,
> SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
>
> Work: +46 (0)8-517 79343,
> Cell: +46 (0)70 888 2352
> Fax: +46 (0)8-301876
>
> email:
[hidden email]
>
http://www.ki.se/cfh/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Julio Vazquez <
[hidden email]>
> Date: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:27 pm
> Subject: Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot
> thickens
> To:
[hidden email]
>
>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>>
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal>>
>> -
>> If you look carefully, you'll also notice that besides the
>> launched/
>> not launched rocket, the two images are not truly identical. For
>> instance, the ratio of white/dark smoke on the rightmost rocket is
>>
>> different in the two pictures. Therefore, saying that one is a
>> doctored version of the other is also incorrect. For all I can
>> tell,
>> they could have been taken on different days.
>>
>> What is really interesting, though, is the psychology behind all
>> this. If the point to make is that Iran is able to launch
>> missiles,
>> even if only three out of four can launch successfully, the point
>> is
>> made... why bother doctoring the picture and risking being
>> ridiculed?
>> Just to show they are perfect? On the other hand, If the picture
>> is
>> correct (not doctored), why bother trying to discredit them by
>> incorrectly stating that it was? Are politicians just little kids
>> playing "my daddy is better than your daddy"?
>>
>> And how about all the fuss being made about the pictures, in the
>> absence of any clear evidence as to which of the two versions is
>> "true"? What does that tell about us? That we can choose to
>> believe
>> whatever version is presented to us, as long as it fits with our
>> own
>> preconceptions, without regard for reality?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Julio Vazquez,
>> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
>> Seattle, WA 98109-1024
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Eric Scarfone wrote:
>>
>>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>>>
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal>>>
>>> Following Dale's observation
>>> That was my impression too until I went to see the original image:
>>>
http://www.daylife.com/photo/0guG4uX12E4bT/Sepah_News>>>
>>> The straight line cutting the smoke at the right side of the
>> truck on
>>> the low res image of the WP page is an artefact of the destructive
>>> comprseeion used (probably Jpeg).
>>>
>>> Take home message, image manipulation also comes unwillingly, thus
>>> always go back, to original image!
>>> Cheers
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Scarfone, PhD, CNRS,
>>> Center for Hearing and communication Research
>>> Department of Clinical Neuroscience
>>> Karolinska Institutet
>>>
>>> Postal Address:
>>> CFH, M1:02
>>> Karolinska Hospital,
>>> SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
>>>
>>> Work: +46 (0)8-517 79343,
>>> Cell: +46 (0)70 888 2352
>>> Fax: +46 (0)8-301876
>>>
>>> email:
[hidden email]
>>>
http://www.ki.se/cfh/>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Dale Callaham <
[hidden email]>
>>> Date: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:39 pm
>>> Subject: Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot
>>> thickens
>>> To:
[hidden email]
>>>
>>>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>>>>
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal>>>>
>>>> Dear Robert and others,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what is going on with the images, but I think that it
>>>> is
>>>> likely that the image on the RIGHT has been tampered, making me
>>>> wonder
>>>> about the validity of either of the images. On the apparently
>>>> "original"
>>>> right member image there is a vertical line at the left limit of
>>>> the
>>>> dust/smoke of the rightmost rocket - was the second from right
>>>> missle
>>>> dud pasted in or was the rightmost rocket pasted in covering 2
>>>> duds as
>>>> only one? Is someone trying to discredit the Iranians by adding in
>>>> the
>>>> dud over a launch? And the smoke trail of the second-from-left
>>>> missle in
>>>> the 2 images does not match so that image area is also modified in
>>>> one
>>>> or the other image.
>>>>
>>>> Dale
>>>>
>>>> Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote:
>>>>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>>>>>
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal>>>>> Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without
>>>> creating
>>>>> a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun).
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp->>>> dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
>>>>> Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
>>>>> Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
>>>>> Bldg 30, Room 310
>>>>> 30 Convent Drive
>>>>> Bethesda MD 20892
>>>>> ph 301-594-0025
>>>>> fax 301-402-0396
>>>>
>>
>>